beta
Text
All appeals by the plaintiffs are dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, which cited the reasoning of the judgment, shall be based on the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and this case shall be based on the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, with the exception of adding the judgment of the court of first instance as follows. Thus, this case shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. The plaintiffs in this court asserted that, as the grounds for appeal in this court, the registration of preservation of ownership in the name of the Republic of Korea with respect to each land of this case was null and void as registration for duplicate preservation, even if the presumption of right is not recognized on each land of this case, each land of this case shall be deemed to be owned by plaintiff A and deceased H in full view of the entry of the land cadastre and the closed register for each land of this case.
① As to the assertion, the Plaintiffs’ assertion on this part is premised on the fact that the registration of initial ownership in the names of Plaintiff A and the network H was made under the name of the Republic of Korea as to each of the above lands without cancelling the previous registration of ownership preservation. As cited earlier, the previous registration of ownership preservation in the names of Plaintiff A and the network H as to each of the lands of this case was recognized on January 31, 1973, and the registration of ownership preservation in the names of the Republic of Korea as to each of the lands of this case was established on February 26, 1996 (as to each of the lands of this case, September 14, 1987). Thus, the aforementioned assertion by the Defendants on different premise is without merit, and further, without merit.
(2) As to the assertion, the above assertion by the plaintiffs is not different from that already asserted by the plaintiffs in the first instance trial.